According to “imaginability arguments,” given any explanation of the physiological correlates of consciousness, it remains imaginable that all elements of that explanation could occur without consciousness, which thus remains unexplained. The O'Brien & Opie connectionist approach effectively shows that perspicuous explanations can bridge this explanatory gap, but bringing in other issues – for example, involving biology and emotion – would facilitate going much further in this direction. A major problem is the ambiguity of the term “representation.” Bridging the gap requires perspicuously explaining not just how we form “representations” in the sense of outputs isomorphic to what is represented, but also what makes representations conscious; I sketch briefly what this would entail.